Theistic morality

[Purple Rabbit]

To claim objectivism is claiming absolutism. It IS the same.

What about science? Science is objective but not absolute is it not?

100% objective and any objectivity is not the same right? 100% objective may be absolute, but what about the objectivity of science? Not 100% absolute objectivity, not "absolute", but still "objective" right?

Science is not objective in the philosophical meaning of the word. Because it relies on perception. We have no access to the noumenon as Kant would say, only to the phenomenon.

Not totally objective is of course just subjective or relative. So there is no real distinction between subjectivity and anything less than 100% objectivity.

---

So the label "immoral" more or less reveals your personal values, your personal rationale behind it and your personal moral goal you've set.

But if I'm to value anything, if I'm to have any morality at all, how are the feelings and interests or "values" of myself an others not the only thing I can value? If I didn't value my feelings, values, interests, or others feelings, values, or interests - then they wouldn't be values. If I value rocks it is only because I'm interested or find them useful in some way for myself or others. And since then this is all I can value, and since it makes no sense whatsoever to say I should value things I can't, what else could morality be?

I did not argue against the value of values ;-). Values are guidelines for behaviour and serve a role in choosing behaviour.